Intra-State sale principle limits Article 286 protection where delivery is completed locally and later transport is buyer-driven.

Revisional jurisdiction under section 12 of the Madras General Sales Tax Act was treated as extending beyond the bare assessment order to the assessment file and the material used by the assessing authority, and the revisional officer could call for books, vouchers, or supporting records to verify the assessment; the challenge on that ground failed. Sales completed by delivery within the State were held to be intra-State transactions even if the buyer later transported the goods outside the State, because that later movement did not form part of the contract of sale. Only spare parts consigned outside the State, where outward movement was integral to the sale, fell within the constitutional restriction; the remaining turnover was taxable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Commercial Tax Officer could validly exercise revisional jurisdiction under section 12 of the Madras General Sales Tax Act by examining material beyond the assessment order and calling for records in the assessee's possession. (ii) Whether the disputed sales, completed by delivery within the State to the dealers or their agents, were sales in the course of inter-State trade or commerce so as to fall within the ban in Article 286(2) of the Constitution.

Issue (i): Whether the Commercial Tax Officer could validly exercise revisional jurisdiction under section 12 of the Madras General Sales Tax Act by examining material beyond the assessment order and calling for records in the assessee's possession.

Analysis: The revisional power extended to examining the correctness of the assessment on the basis of the assessment file and the material used by the assessing authority. The record was not confined to the bare assessment order, but included the assessment file and the accounts or abstracts furnished by the assessee. Where necessary, the revisional authority could call for the original books, vouchers, or supporting evidence to verify the entries relied upon in the assessment. No irrelevant material was shown to have been considered.

Conclusion: The revisional jurisdiction was validly exercised and the assessee's objection on this ground failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the disputed sales, completed by delivery within the State to the dealers or their agents, were sales in the course of inter-State trade or commerce so as to fall within the ban in Article 286(2) of the Constitution.

Analysis: Sales completed by delivery ex-factory within the State to the dealer or the dealer's representative were intra-State sales, even if the goods were intended to be transported outside the State after delivery. The subsequent movement of goods by the buyer was not part of the contract of sale where the sale itself had been completed within the State. Only the item where spare parts were consigned by the seller to dealers outside the State, and the delivery formed an integral part of the sale transaction, came within the constitutional restriction. The remaining items, being closed sales completed within Madras before the buyer's transport began, were not protected by Article 286(2).

Conclusion: Items 1 to 3 were taxable and did not fall within Article 286(2); item 4 was outside the assessable turnover and could not be taxed.

Final Conclusion: The assessment was sustained in substance, but the turnover relating to spare parts consigned outside the State was excluded, leaving only limited relief to the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: A sale completed by delivery within the State is not converted into inter-State trade merely because the buyer intends to transport the goods outside the State; only when the movement outside the State is an integral part of the sale transaction does Article 286(2) apply.

---